2020 Honda CR-V VTi-S AWD v Mazda CX-5 Maxx Sport AWD comparison

The Honda CR-V and Mazda CX-5 are two popular players in the medium-SUV segment.

Both can be had with petrol power and all-wheel drive for under $40 grand.

Let’s see which is our pick as the best all-rounder.

How do they compare on price?

At $36,490 before on-roads, the Honda VTi-S is the lower of two petrol AWD grades in the CR-V range. It’s quite a step up to the more highly specified VTi-LX, priced at $44,290.

Meanwhile, the Sport Maxx sits above the base Maxx in Mazda’s broader choice of six different petrol AWD variants and wants for $39,090 list. For comparison, the flagship Akera Turbo version sits way up at $50,630.

It might seem that the Mazda’s $2600-pricier positioning brings a higher-grade choice against a more affordable base-spec Honda, but only if the CX-5 offers a fitter level of equipment to match the premium ask.

Both SUVs get keyless entry, push button start, a reversing camera, dual-zone climate control, LED taillights, automatic headlights and rain-sensing wipers, though only the Mazda fits LED headlights and fog lights, whereas the Honda makes do with halogens and LED DRLs.

What are they like inside?

Mazda’s take is pleasing and inoffensive in a manner that pleases a good many owners, though it is aging compared with the slick new format in the current Mazda3 cabin.

The Mazda is a little plain: the analogue instruments are basic and there’s no digital speedometer. Meanwhile, the seven-inch touchscreen appears tiny perched on the dash top, it’s graphically basic and has a cumbersome interface using the console rotary controller.

The CR-V cabin feels more substantial in material choice and it’s fancier and more elaborately styled, though its almost ‘sci-fi’ approach to design, including its dash-mounted transmission controller, won’t be to all buyer tastes. On balance, the Honda’s infotainment system is no better than the Mazda’s and we found the navigation feature to be clumsy to use.

The Honda seems airier in the first row and feels measurably the roomiest of the pair in row two – be it hear, shoulder or knee room. The CR-V remains a leading light for smart interior packaging, while also offering seating that’s markedly more comfort-focused and friendlier for long trips.

Both offer oodles of stowage and facility for powering devices and each offers rear passenger ventilation, as all SUVs should.

The CR-V stretches its interior advantage in the boot, its wide and deep proportions and superior volume (522L plays the CX-5’s 422L). While Mazda advertises larger luggage area (1342L plays the CR-V’s 1084L) the Honda maintains superior luggage because each makers uses difference measuring methods.

The Honda takes the clear victory here for interior goodness and overall practicality.

Which is the safest car?

Both contenders offer quite extensive safety credentials, though it’s worth a mention that the comprehensive Honda Sensing package of assistance technologies is only fitted to AWD version of the CR-V VTi-S (it’s omitted front-drive versions). Meanwhile, Mazda’s bundled safety and assistance is called i-Activsense.

Each features radar-based forward monitoring that brings with it more advanced AEB and adaptive cruise control with urban automation – Stop-Go for Mazda, Low-Speed Follow for Honda – and both feature forward collision and lane departure warning systems as well as active lane keeping smarts.

What do they have under the bonnet?

Despite two distinctly different approaches to powertrain format these two SUVs offer similar returns in few key ways.

The Mazda fits a 2.5-litre naturally aspirated four cylinder while the Honda is powered by a smaller 1.5-litre turbocharged four, yet both produce 140kW.

At 252Nm, the CX-5’s 2.5L offers superior torque, but the engine demands to be revved hard and seems raucous and strained doing so. That said, though the six-speed auto does a decent job of plucking the powertrain’s best with a smooth powertrain character that will pleasing many owners.

While the Honda 1.5-litre’s 240Nm looks more anaemic on paper, its broad torque spread makes for gustier and lower-stress progress and sharper response. Its CVT transmission can cause the engine to drone at an rpm point at times, but that’s the worst of what’s the more polished package.

Which is the most economical car?

Neither. Each runs happily on basic 91RON fuel, which will return genuine hip-pocket benefit in the long run over pricier higher-octane unleaded options.

Both arrive with average consumption claims of 7.4L/100kms, yet both returned right on 10-litre figures in our real-world testing along identical routes.

Which is the best car to drive?

The Honda’s gutsier, less-strained powertrain contributes in part to quieter and smoother experience, but it’s a measure of shades between two decent if not necessarily outstanding segment competitors.

Both are refined ride well at highway pace though at lower speeds, around town, the CR-V is measurably more complaint over bumps and lumps.

The CX-5 is more one-dimensional, with a more fidgety ride and more apparent ambient and tyre noise. Generally speaking, there’s not a lot to neither complain nor rave about.

Both on-demand all-wheel drive systems in this competition demonstrated impressively transparent functionality, so exceptional traction when you need it, particularly in slippery first rain conditions.

Both offer identical 11-metre turning circles and are easy to judge and park, though the Honda does feel larger and trickier to park in tight car spaces. Of the two, the rear cross traffic alert (and reversing AEB) is a real boon for the Mazda when reversing out of parking spots.

Any problems I should look out for?

Both should offer bulletproof reliable motoring though each brings characteristic traits they may grate against particular user tastes.

The Mazda’s lack of shove may infuriate those with a leaden right foot or lack the patience to forgive the infotainment system some of its clunky interface.

The rev-pinning whine Honda’s CVT creates under acceleration will drive some owners batty, while that otherwise handy LaneWatch camera, which flashes into life at every ‘left touch’ of the indicator stalk, can annoy as it can’t be permanently disabled.

But they’re so different from one another in character and vibe – yet equally fit in their core roles of family hauling – that we recommend testing both for yourself and simply opting for the cut of whichever of these two jibs you subjectively prefer.